Now, where was I before I was so rudely interrupted 4 months ago?
Oh yes, you said...
You're conflating different issues. The issue is whether soc images of Sheila fit with with Dr Ismail's evidence of Sheila's head "propped against a bedside cabinet". They don't.
Just as a reminder this discussion refers to new evidence described in paragraph 518 of the CoA report from 2002:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.htmlThe whole point of this evidence is that the police images do
not fit or match Mr Ismails evidence of Sheilas head being "propped against a bedside cabinet" immediately after death.
In the CoA report, Mr Ismail's evidence only makes a
prediction of the final position of Sheila's body
immediately after death, and that is completely separate to the position of her body as seen in the photographs, and as described by Woodcock. There are no police photos of this predicted position (for obvious reasons).
The evidence from Mr Ismail's report shows very convincingly that Sheila's murderer shifted her body after death into the position that is then depicted in the photos. Therefore there aren't any photos of this
predicted position with her head propped against the bedside cabinet, not unless Jeremy Bamber himself took photos.
So what does 'propped against the bedside cabinet' actually mean, does it mean the same as "slightly raised" as witnessed by Woodcock when he saw the body upon breaking into the house at 07:30?
CoA quote:
"there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force". From the above quote Mr Ismail is
predicting that the head, immediately after death, was significantly
above the body. Given that the head wasn't severed from the body, it can only be that the head was situated in a vertical position above the height of the body. remember this is a prediction based on evidence. No photos.
The only way her head could go from a vertical position immediately after death, to the position described by Woodcock, and as depicted in the photos, is if someone physically moved the body after she died, but before the police entered at 07:30.
Only Sheila's murderer could have done this.
Mr Ismails prediction is derived from two main pieces of evidence: visible blood staining from the photos and the rucking up of her nightdress.
You only get blood staining if the blood is wet. So the body must have been moved when the blood was wet.
The blood is very obviously dry in the photos. So the moving of the body was conducted long before the photos were taken.
The now notorious wet blood images that Bamber and his current lawyers never talk about, doesn't count as wet blood, because we know that these images were faked by Giovanni Di Stefano (or he had them faked) in the early 2000's.
None of the publicly available images can be relied upon (they have all been released illegally by Bambers lawyers and supporters), as we know there has been some photoshopping conducted on some of them, they are of very poor reproduction quality, and there are many more photos that we don't have access to, and it is only the full set of images that collectively tell the story of what happened.
